LWVC HOME - VOTING Q&As - STATE PROPS - ABOUT LWV ON BALLOT MEASURES:   ABOUT OUR ANALYSIS - LIST of PROPS - IN DEPTH - SMART VOTER

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND	Nonpartisan Pros & Cons of PROPOSITION 32 VETERANS' BOND ACT OF 2000.
	Legislative Bond Act

THE QUESTION

Should the state borrow $500 million through the sale of general obligation bonds to replenish Cal-Vet funding for long term farm and home loans made to California veterans?

THE SITUATION

Since 1922, the state has helped veterans finance homes and farms with long term, low interest loans. About 400,000 veterans have been able to purchase property through this program. California voters have approved all 25 of the past measures to renew the bonds and continue funding for Cal-Vet loans.

THE PROPOSAL

This measure would replace general obligation bonds that have been repaid to the public. The money is to be used solely to help California veterans purchase homes, mobile homes and farms. The bonds will not be issued until present funds are depleted, which is expected to occur in 2002.

FISCAL EFFECT

According to the Legislative Analyst, the Cal-Vet lending program is self-supporting, with the mortgage payments by veterans paying off the bond debt. It is necessary to renew the bonds as they are paid off to investors so that the state has continued funds to draw upon.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• The Cal-Vet loan program helps veterans invest in homes and farms in California, at no expense to the taxpayer.
  
  
• Both the Senate and the Assembly approved this measure unanimously.
  

• Money raised from the sale of tax-free bonds could be spent on taxable investments, bringing money into the state treasuries.
  
  
• These loans should be available only to those disabled in military combat.
  

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND	Nonpartisan Pros & Cons of PROPOSITION 33 LEGISLATURE. PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
	Legislative Constitutional Amendment

THE QUESTION

Should the State Constitution be amended to allow state legislators to participate in the California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS)?

THE SITUATION

The California Legislature has 120 members - 80 in the Assembly and 40 in the Senate. The State Constitution currently provides that an independent commission annually establishes the salaries and benefits (other than retirement) of legislators. Retirement benefits for service in the legislature are limited to participation in the federal Social Security System.

In November of 1990, the voters approved an initiative measure (Proposition 140) that imposed limitations on the terms of elected state officials. Additionally, it capped and controlled expenditures pertaining to the legislature's own institutional budget and prohibited legislators from accruing pension or retirement benefits (other than Social Security) as a result of their service after November 1, 1990. The justification for the prohibition of retirement benefits was that under term limits, legislative service was no longer considered a "career" option.

THE PROPOSAL

This proposition would amend the State Constitution to allow legislators to participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), which provides retirement benefits to a majority of state government workers.

Proposition 33 would:

1. allow members of the California Legislature the option to participate in PERS.

2. allow any legislator that was elected or serving on or after November 1, 1990 to participate in any state retirement plan that has been set up for a majority of other state employees.
   

FISCAL EFFECT

The state cost to provide PERS retirement benefits to legislators would depend on (1) how many legislators would choose to participate and (2) the annual employer PERS contribution rate. These costs, however, would be under $1 million each year, according to the Legislative Analyst.

This expense would have to be paid out of the annual amount provided for support of the legislature. As such, this proposition would not result in additional state costs, but would instead replace other types of spending in that budget.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• This measure would allow legislative participation in PERS on the same terms and conditions as the average government employee.

• The proposal eliminates the inequity created by Proposition 140 in 1990.
  

• This proposition would result in an ongoing indeterminate General Fund cost to provide retiree health benefits for legislators.

• It creates inequity since legislators would become eligible for full retiree health benefits upon vesting in the Miscellaneous Tier I retirement category in five years, while state employees can be required to work 20 years to earn the same benefit.
  

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND	Nonpartisan Pros & Cons of PROPOSITION 34 CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND SPENDING. LIMITS. DISCLOSURE.
	Legislative Initiative Amendment

THE QUESTION

Should campaign finance reform provisions, approved by California voters in 1996 in Proposition 208, be replaced with increases in campaign contribution and spending limits enacted by the legislature?

THE SITUATION

Three times during the past quarter century, California voters have attempted to impose limits on how much candidates for state offices may collect and spend on their campaigns. Each time, successful court challenges to the propositions have rendered the measures unenforceable. As a result, California remains one of six states that have no ceilings on campaign contributions and expenditures.

The latest voter attempt at campaign contribution and spending limits was Proposition 208, which passed by 61% in 1996, but has been help up in the courts. In response to the possibility that Proposition 208 might be implemented, the legislature has placed this substitute measure on the ballot.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 34 would repeal a majority of the provisions established by Proposition 208. It would substitute increased limits of up to 20 times the amount that state candidates can receive from contributors and up to 4 times the amount they can spend if they accept spending limits. Unlike Proposition 208, it allows unlimited spending by political parties on campaigns -- i.e., soft money spending.

The measure adds provisions to require additional disclosures in slate mailers and other voter communications. It also expands electronic filing requirements regarding certain contributions and independent expenditures.

FISCAL EFFECT

Costs of enforcement would be offset to an unknown extent by payment of violators' fines. Net costs to the state could be several million dollars annually, according to the Legislative Analyst.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• The campaign contribution and spending limits established by this proposition are realistic for a state the size of California.

• Increased disclosure requirements, including those for immediate reporting of certain contributions and expenditures, will provide voters with the information they need in a timely fashion.
  

OPPONENTS SAY

• Proposition 34 was placed on the ballot with record speed, completely bypassing the normal legislative process, in order to forestall reinstatement of a campaign finance reform measure already approved by the voters.

• The excessively high contribution and expenditure limits, along with a provision for a massive soft money loophole and no limits on political party contributions to candidates, will not bring about genuine reform.

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND	Nonpartisan Pros & Cons of PROPOSITION 35 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS. USE OF PRIVATE CONTRACTORS FOR ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES.
	Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

THE QUESTION

Should the California Constitution be amended to allow state, regional and local governments to contract with private entities for engineering and architectural services?

THE SITUATION

Under existing California law, services provided by state agencies must be provided by civil service employees. Exceptions can be made when services are (1) of a temporary nature, (2) not available within the civil service or (3) are highly specialized or technical. State agencies frequently contract out with private firms for environmental impact studies, as well as architectural and engineering services, but can do so only if the above exceptions apply. Local governments, however, can usually contract with private firms for any needed services.

Before the 1970s, any private firm could submit bids for state-funded construction projects. Firms would be chosen on the basis of competitive cost bids, with design and engineering qualifications being secondary. However, in the early 1970s, the Brooks Act became federal law. The act established the Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) process, which provides for advertising of needed services and selection of the firm deemed best qualified for those services. The California Legislature adopted the federal QBS criteria in 1990 for negotiating and awarding state and local architectural or engineering contracts.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 35 would:

• remove existing restrictions on the state's ability to contract with private firms for architectural and engineering services

• define "architectural and engineering services" to include all architectural, landscape architectural, environmental, engineering, land surveying, and construction management services

• specifically include all projects in the State Transportation and Improvement Program

• require contracts to be awarded through a fair, competitive selection process.

FISCAL EFFECT

According to the Legislative Analyst, contracting with private firms for architectural and engineering services would be easier if restrictions were eliminated. Therefore, the state would probably contract out more of these services. But the fiscal effect of those contracts would depend largely on two variables: the cost of services, and the impact on construction project delivery.

Cost of services
The relative costs of salaries and benefits for state employees compared to costs for private firms will vary from project to project. Additionally, a sudden increase in construction activity might mean the hiring and training of new state employees, an added cost factor.

Construction project delivery
Contracting out could be more expedient and prevent the build-up of staff that may be needed only temporarily. In addition, earlier project completions could result in lower construction-related expenses.

Due to the variable nature of these cost considerations, the net impact on state costs is unknown.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Proposition 35 will restore to state and local governments, special districts and school districts the choice to contract with private sector firms for architectural and engineering services, something 49 states do already.

• Private contractors, as in the existing law, would be chosen based on their qualifications.
  

• Proposition 35 will delay construction of roads, schools, health care facilities and other projects. Traffic congestion will get worse.

• The real purpose of Proposition 35 is to benefit huge engineering corporations that paid to put the proposition on the ballot.
  

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND	Nonpartisan Pros & Cons of PROPOSITION 36 DRUGS. PROBATION AND TREATMENT PROGRAM.
	Initiative Statute

THE QUESTION

Should California modify its sentencing law so that adult offenders convicted of nonviolent drug offenses are sent to drug treatment programs, instead of prison or county jail, so long as sale, production or manufacture of controlled substances is not involved?

THE SITUATION

California incarcerates a higher percentage of its citizens for drug offenses than any other state. A number of these are non-violent offenders, many of whom are parolees being recycled through the prison system.

Drug possession for personal use is classified as non-violent, non-serious crime. It may be either a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the drug. Forbidden drugs are marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and certain medicines requiring a physician's prescription. A misdemeanor conviction can result in a jail term; a felony conviction can result in a prison or jail sentence. At the judge's discretion, lighter sentences may also be given.

With the passage of the "Three Strikes" law in 1994, the frequency of sentencing for non-violent drug offenses has been rising. A California State Department of Corrections report dated March 2000 shows that of 61,771 yearly parole violators, 48% were returned behind bars for drug possession.

A recent trend in managing drug possession cases is the use of diversion systems such as the Drug Court System or the Deferred Entry of Judgement. Certain offenders are chosen at the judge's discretion, and after a guilty plea, are allowed to enter rehabilitation programs instead of jail or prison. Drug Courts exist in 45 counties, for a total of 101 in the state. Criteria for admission vary greatly by county.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 36:

• requires probation and a drug treatment program, not incarceration, for convictions and parole violations involving possession, use, transportation or being under the influence of controlled substances, not including sale or manufacture

• allows for additional probation conditions such as vocational training, family counseling, literacy training or community service

• allows for dismissal of charges upon completion of the treatment program

• provides counties with state funds to implement the measure, and requires a study of its effectiveness.
  

• Proposition 36 would mean huge financial savings for all Californians. Every dollar spent in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers over $7 in societal costs.

• Non-violent offenders will get the treatment services they need, which are much more effective than jail or prison and which reduce the human toll exacted by imprisonment.
  

• Proposition 36 replaces judicial discretion with a mandatory and inflexible system that is dangerous because it virtually decriminalizes all drug use.

• It threatens the parole system. Law enforcement would have to wait for addicted parolee to actually commit a violent or serious crime before returning that person to jail or prison.
  

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND	Nonpartisan Pros & Cons of PROPOSITION 37 FEES. VOTE REQUIREMENTS. TAXES.
	Initiative Constitutional Amendment

THE QUESTION

Should the California Constitution be changed to redefine as taxes any compulsory regulatory fees enacted by state or local government on a product or activity that has or can cause environmental or health damages?

THE SITUATION

State and local governments currently can impose a variety of fees and taxes on residents and businesses. In general, taxes (such as income, property and sales) are used to pay for general public services such as transportation, education, and the courts. Fees usually pay for a specific service or program that benefits individuals or businesses. User fees (such as park entrance charges) pay for the cost of the service; whereas regulatory fees (such as land development, smog check, restaurant health inspection) pay for programs which place rules upon the activity performed.

The process for creating new taxes is more stringent than that for creating new fees. State or local governments can create or increase a fee by a majority vote of the governing body. In contrast, creating or increasing a tax usually requires a two-thirds vote of either the people or the state legislature.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 37 redefines certain compulsory fees as taxes. It would:

• Require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to impose state fees used to pay for monitoring, studying or mitigating environmental, economic or societal damages of an activity when the fees impose no regulatory obligation upon the payor

• require, at the local level, a two-thirds vote of the people to pass a fee if the proposed charge is for a specific purpose, or a simple majority vote if for a general purpose

• redefine such regulatory fees as taxes, beginning with fees enacted after July 1, 1999 and into the future.
  

• Proposition 37 will limit the growth of government, bureaucratic waste and higher prices for consumers.

• This measure makes certain that taxpayers know what they're paying for.
  

• Proposition 37 makes taxpayers, rather than the responsible corporations, pay for environmental and health damages caused by their products.

• It would overturn the unanimous decision of the California Supreme Court to make for-profit companies pay mitigation fees on damages caused by manufactured products.

For further information:
Supporters: (916) 448-4266, www.yesonprop37.org
Opponents: (510) 444-4793, www.polluterprotection.com

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND	Nonpartisan Pros & Cons of PROPOSITION 38 SCHOOL VOUCHERS. STATE-FUNDED PRIVATE AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING.
	Initiative Constitutional Amendment

THE QUESTION

Should the state make yearly payments of $4,000 or more per student in kindergarten through twelfth grade, for use as tuition in private or religious schools?

THE SITUATION

Spending for California public schools is currently limited by Proposition 13, which restricts the amount available from property taxes. Proposition 98, which the voters approved in 1988, raised the limit by guaranteeing a minimum amount for grades K-14. The state does not currently pay for tuition in private schools, except for a very few special-needs children.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 38 would authorize annual tuition payments, or vouchers, of $4,000 or more per student in kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) enrolled in private or religious schools, and for those pupils transferring from public schools to private schools.

The voucher payment program would be implemented in yearly stages for students already enrolled in private schools, as follows:
        2001-2002 kindergarten only
        2002-2003 kindergarten through second grade
        2003-2004 kindergarten through eighth grade
        2004-2005 kindergarten through twelfth grade

Additionally, Proposition 38:

• limits and restricts the authority of state and local jurisdictions over private schools in the areas of health, safety, zoning and building code requirements, as well as academic standards

• allows the legislature to replace current public school funding with funding per student at the national average or greater, using a funding calculation defined in the measure

• prohibits participating private schools from discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, or national origin

• does not prohibit participating schools from restricting admission on the basis of sex, religion, ability, and disability.
  

• Proposition 38 gives parents a real chance to rescue children that are trapped in failing schools.

• Students moving from public schools to private schools will relieve overcrowding in the public schools.
  

• Public funds would go to schools that can reject children based on gender, religion, ability to pay, language, academic ability, or physical ability.

• Funding could be given to private schools that are not accountable to taxpayers -- for teacher credentialing, for curriculum, for building codes or for sound finances.
  

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND	Nonpartisan Pros & Cons of PROPOSITION 39 SCHOOL FACILITIES. 55% LOCAL VOTE. BONDS, TAXES. ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS.
	Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

• bond funds be used only for construction, rehabilitation, school facilities equipment, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities

• a specific list of school facilities to be funded be itemized, along with the school board's certification that it has evaluated safety, class size reduction, and information technology needs in developing the school improvement and construction list

• the school board conduct annual, independent financial and performance audits until all bond funds have been spent, to ensure the proceeds have been used only for the specific projects listed in the measure.
  

• prohibit school bond votes except at regularly scheduled elections

• limit the amount of property taxes that can be raised by a local school board

• mandate citizen watchdog committees to make sure money is not wasted and to stop any project if audits show wasteful or unauthorized spending.
  

• The supermajority for bond measures means that one-third plus one rules, no matter how great the public need.

• California needs 20,000 new classrooms to keep up with projected school population growth in the next 10 years.
  

• The two-thirds requirement protects a minority of homeowners from property tax increases caused by a majority of renters.

• The taxpayer protections provided by "Special Provisions" are only statutes and can be changed by the Legislature and Governor without voter approval.
  

Analysis prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
for the November 7, 2000 Election.